Author
Topic: Robert on Jason Cooper (Read 17219 times)

I think the simple answer here would to be to look which members were in the band during the height of their popularity (which was from about 1985 to 1992). And who just happened to be the drummer during this period? Coincidence?

Jason could play in the band into his 90s and he would still never match the success that Boris achieved. The numbers are indisputable! :!:

Hi, I posted only a "True Words" because Adlib wrote the words I always thought. There's no reason to react pissed about anything, I think. And I must agree with lostflower4 as well. The Cure had their peak from 1985 to 1992 and after that, Robert started to batter the band. Embarrassing quitting of most talented band members, loopy records and interviews. And yes, he hired one of the most untalented and non-charismatic drummers ever. In his heart of hearts he knows that the days of an innovative and successful Cure are over. Since 2002 the band acts like a museum ... "Trilogy" (including the pipe dream that "Bloodflowers" has to be placed on a par with "Pornography" and "Disintegration"), "Festival" (OMG) and last but not least "Reflections". Not let's gossip about the re-released with the strange vocal overdubs which he/they didn't mentioned anywhere ...

Bob gets mad but the truth is that Boris was a real drummer whereas Jason is a lucky guy who happened to get a job because WMS producer (Steve Lyon) recommended him instead of Mark Price who was the chosen one...

Bob gets mad but the truth is that Boris was a real drummer whereas Jason is a lucky guy who happened to get a job because WMS producer (Steve Lyon) recommended him instead of Mark Price who was the chosen one...

Rock'n'Roll Hall Of Fame is a strange kind of "award" anyway, a band can only get in if it's been "in the business" for 25 years or more. If anyone, they should mention Lol Tolhurst as a drummer, as he was in this position when the band started.

Hi, I posted only a "True Words" because Adlib wrote the words I always thought. There's no reason to react pissed about anything, I think.

Hm, like AdLib you didn't get my point: I wasn't pissed about anything. Adlib said he or she was getting mad at a post saying "Robert was right", "...without further explanation is so interesting it could as well mention "Today it's sunny" : it's just tiring and as much informative. "Which kinda surprised to me, because judging from this point of view, your short post should've made Adlib "mad" as well, as it didn't add any further explanation...Got it now?

You could easily look at the switch between the Cure’s two definitive drummers as the fulcrum between the two phases of their career. Lol Tolhurst’s drumming was tight, economical, and unembellished, guiding the Cure through their post-punk and goth years with his crisp and dark playing, but by the mid-’80s, the band was moving on to bigger and better things, and brought on Boris Williams to fill in as Lol became increasingly unreliable. Williams’ drum work, pronounced, thundering and anthemic, was just what the band needed for the epic and commercially viable musical statements they’d make for the rest of the decade, through the early ‘90s. Then they brought on some other guy, and no one cared about the band again. Coincidence?

I just wonder who you consider you are to decree what's on or off topic and then reply again to something you considered being off topic... Quietly paradoxal to a cartesian mind, sorry...

I consider myself a member of this forum who felt the urge to tell his opinion, nothing more. You might feel the urge to do looooong off-topic posts, I might feel the urge to reply to them. Not more, not less.

Don't even know what that last sentence means, but please don't bother to tell me, as I'm not interested anymore from now on.

We had discussions like this in the past and from my personal view is better to ignore certain replies because then this become a senseless discussion (which can create bad feelings and that's certanly not the purpose of this forum). Instead, I would advice to turn the page and/or focus on other's members replies...

This must be a problem with a band like The Cure, who changes its line-up so often. Which members of the band should get inducted in the Hall of Fame? It is much easier for bands like The Beatles and Queen, who had the same members through out their careers.

If The Cure were to get inducted, should all past members count or just the most "important" ones, or the ones who have served the longest time span, or the ones who played on their most succesful albums etc?

Smith, Gallup and Tolhurst of course, but what about Dempsey and Hartley who only performed on one album each? Then we have the long-serving members Williams, Thompson, O'Donnell, Bamonte and Cooper.

I'm not sure about Anderson and Thornally actually being counted as official members as they were in the band for just about a year (Thornally didn't even appear on any studio album). I see Reeves Gabrels mainly as a temporary tour member, as the current line-up still hasn't (and never will?) recorded together.